Lara Croft is very popular, it turns out – so why did Square Enix offload her and its other major IP for a relatively small amount?
Take-Two Interactive states their edict on microtransactions has been to over-deliver on content, and the monetization will follow.
To be fair, while GTA Online is monetized heavily both GTA Online and GTA V offer a massive amount of content without paying anything extra. Though I do think GTA Online's optional subscription is bullshit.
Can you please focus on delivering enough quality content to justify the $70 asking price? While I appreciate the idea of over-delivering, it's essential to ensure that the base content itself is worth it. I have concerns that GTA6 might have less single-player content because most of the focus seems to be shifting towards online play and microtransactions.
It's understandable why publishers are capitalizing on microtransactions when they generate billions with relatively little effort compared to traditional content creation. We, as consumers, are partly responsible for this trend. I've seen people spend on FIFA cards as if it's a normal part of the game. Previously, features like player cards and big head mode were earned through gameplay or cheat codes, but now gamers are willing to pay for them, so publishers have no reason not to monetize these features.
It's astonishing that the gaming industry is now more profitable than any other entertainment sector. Yet, despite record-high profits, the industry continues to see increasing levels of greed. It's baffling to hear about record profits followed by significant layoffs of developers. This disconnect makes no sense.
I know it’s unlikely given the size of the industry, but it might take a significant downturn for things to reset. Currently, there are too many decision-makers who lack a genuine understanding of gaming, focusing only on financial spreadsheets. A prime example is Andrew Wilson, the CEO of EA.
It must be a nightmare working at Rockstar in a Production role...dealing with the team egos and those of the V suite. #soulcrush
The thing is doesn't that just give studios the excuse of filling their games with content that’s just going bloat it rather than contribute towards the main story.
Ubisoft games for example with all the markers where 90% of it is just padding or useless crap.
Or maybe they design the game in a way that makes it feel longer but it’s because they’ve created it in a way where you are spending most of your time backtracking with spaced out unlocks that help your reach new areas or even having to do a bunch of platforming / parkour to get around. Jedi Survivor was the first game recently that’s made me think “ we didn’t need all this, it should have been more linear”.
It gets tiring
From school politics to ping-pong, pistols to police procedurals, let’s dive into the best that Rockstar has to offer.
EA Sports dropped their first gameplay trailer for College Football 25 today and the game looks truly amazing. Buried in the details of the game hype, however, is a significant letdown for those who play online dynasty (a significant portion of the userbase).
Likely because Sony wants to buy Square's Japanese IPs, but they didn't need Western IPs like Tomb Raider and Deus Ex because those games directly compete with Sony's own 1st party lineup (Uncharted, Death Stranding etc.)
I'll genuinely be shocked if Sony doesn't announce ownership the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest IPs by the end of this summer.
It's a shame because I would have preferred if Nintendo got the Dragon Quest IP. DQ has that anime art style that fits perfectly with Ninty's stable of games.
Have any articles mentioned how much Square paid for Eidos? I found an article that says 117 million. And that purchase included Hitman.
https://www.gamedeveloper.c...
So why is everyone saying they sold cheap?
Why does it matter? Just hoping the new owners can do the franchise some justice.
NFTs